citizenship and presidency

[javasaurus]

Most Americans know that you have to be a natural-born citizen to become president. (Of course, the definition of "natural-born" is somewhat open to interpretation.) My question is this: are you eligible to become president if you are born outside the US (including its territories), but the place of your birth becomes a new state? And another: Do you retain eligibility if you were born on U.S. soil, but the location later became, somehow, non-US?

Wacky related question: If you are born on a plane flying over the US, does that count?

Finally, do any of you have thoughts about the idea that citizens who are not natural-born citizens cannot become president?

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

in territory that became a state, it likely (for anybody living today, it was) a place that was always a territory as far as that is concerned.

prior to that, I'm not sure. constitutional precedent is that if it becomes american later, it counts, because certainly every founding father was part of a colony of britain prior to the revolution and constitution.

retain eligibility? yes, always. you were born in the united states, and that is all that matters.

the other exception is that if you were born outside of the country, but in a u.s. owned hospital or base (military or otherwise) or a u.s. consolate (in case your mother couldn't get to the hospital) - you're still on u.s. soil as far as the constitution is concerned.

wacky question? believe it or not, it depends on 1) the airline, and 2) where it's going. if the airline is heading away from the u.s., then it probably counts your birth place as the place of landing because that will be the first place a birth certificate can be written.

finally, i think that if you have to be 35 to qualify to be the president, then maybe it should be that you have to be 35 years as a citizen to qualify if you were either 1) naturalized, or 2) in one of those odd situations of being born to american citizens but not on what qualifies as american soil.

if that latter case came up, the constitution probably would be quickly amended. so far, it hasn't.

the problem is that the constitution, prior to the 14th amendment, really tried to avoid the use of the term "citizen" because of the exclusivity and sense of privilage that implies. if citizens had rights that non-citizens didn't, the entire bill of rights would lose all meaning because it would open the door to abuses against foreigners (as the alien and sedition acts quickly tried to achieve).

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

I can't believe I don't remember any of this from school, but was any of the discussion behind the citizen thing being put into the constitution related to not being ruled by the King of England? As in, a foreign government that had its own interests and would think of them as more important than the interests of the US?